source file: m1476.txt Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:18:39 -0700 Subject: Reply to Paul Erlich From: Carl Lumma >The 11/8 in 72tET is 1 cent off. If you really think this discrepancy >makes certain modulation effects impossible, you should (a) perform some >listening experiments and (b) remember that it was Partch himself who, >when told that JI made ordinary modulations impossible, allowed the >22-cent syntonic comma "correction" which would not be noticeable enough >to impede the sense of modulation. You might be right. I don't have enough experience with 72 to know. But I'll keep it in mind. I do know that higher-level consistency is a beautiful concept that negotiates many factors to create a measure of how well an equal temperament can represent JI. Obviously, it breaks down somewhere, when the step size gets very small. But probably more around 612 than 34 or 69. >Sure, but as far as strictly defined notated pitches, didn't he stick to >43? He claimed he never stuck to anything. I think it is most accurate to say that Partch composed from an infinite set of pitches, but seldom needed more than 43 at a time. >No room for transposed tonality diamonds on 11 identities. Not in 43 pitches, no. >Third irrelevancy: I consider plain old, simultanoeus-sounding, level-1 >consistency to be important for ETs up to 34, and possibly 69. Beyond >that, the tones are less than 1% different from one another, so in most >musical circumstances what you have is tantamount to a continuous >spectrum of pitch. I don't buy it. Carl